Allowed

Syed Salami, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/4737/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes a First Information Report in Crime No.677 of 2018. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. despite the offences being non-compoundable, following an amicable settlement and a joint compromise memo signed by all parties, referencing Supreme Court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.677 of 2018 is quashed; the terms of the joint compromise memo are endorsed.

Syed Salami, Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4737 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4737 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2907 of 2019

¶7

1.Syed Salami,

¶8

2.Yasar Arabath ... Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Inspector of Police Rajapalayam South Police Station Virudhunagar District (Cr.No.677/2018) 2.Balasubramanian ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Cr.No.677 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Uthayakumar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.677 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent police.

¶15

2 . The case is still at the stage of investigation. By passage of time, the parties have decided to bury their hatchet and compromise the dispute amicably among themselves.

¶16

3. A Joint Memo of Compromise has been filed before this Court which have been signed by the petitioners and the second respondent and also by their respective counsel. The petitioners and the second respondent were also present in person before this Court and they were identified by Mr.Marichamy, Special Sub Inspector of Police. This Court also enquired both the parties and was satisfied that the parties have come to an amicable settlement between themselves.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/2

¶19

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4737 of 2019

¶20

4 . Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the First Information Report pending before the respondent police. Even though, the offences involved are not compoundable in nature. In the light of the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 9 SCC 641- (Parbathbhai Aahir @ Parbathbhai Vs. State of Gujrath), this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashes the First Information Report in Crime No.677 of 2018 pending on the file of the first respondent police.

¶21

It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners already paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) [Each of the petitioner Rs.5,000/-] as costs, to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund (payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry), and filed the photocopy of the receipt along with this memo, on 22.11.2019. The said submission is placed on record.

¶22

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the F.I.R in Crime No.677 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed and the terms of joint compromise memo shall form part and parcel of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶23

// True Copy //

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

¶27

The Inspector of Police Rajapalayam South Police Station Virudhunagar District.

¶28

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

The Section Officer,Accounts Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

+1CC TO MR.A.UTHAYA KUMAR, Advocate Sr. No. 101024

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4737 of 2019 22.11.2019

¶32

pm(CO)

¶33

TR(25.11.2019) 2P 5C

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

2/2

Syed Salami, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Salami, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeenath Nisha Vs the Inspector of Police

C. Ganthiyammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Manickam Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugam Chettiyar Vs Lakshmanan Chettiyar

Gomathi Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Arun Raj@Arun Vs the Inspector of Police